This term has flown by. Yet, I think I can safely say that I have learnt a lot from this course.
I think that the most important thing I've learnt from this course is really not to take cultural differences at face value. It's easy to make generalizations like "Japanese are polite" or Americans are boisterous". Yet to be able to see past these appearances to try and understand the intentions behind these gestures is a different ball game altogether.
That is really what I think we have been doing in the past 13 weeks. By analyzing language and discourse not just to analyze the differences in cultures, but to understand why these differences are and what they mean.
I think my own project is a true reflection of this. Before the project, I was quick to make many assumptions, like American teachers are liberal but Chinese teachers are more authoritative. Perhaps that's true. But I've come to realize, these impressions have much deeper underlying reasons behind them, sometimes amounting to a cultural heritage of factors such as education, tradition, and simply differences in perceptions.
It's easy to judge other cultures based on the norms of one's own culture. But to be able to do that using the norms of the other culture is more difficult. It's like trading your pair of eyes with someone else's. Yet I think I've learnt a bit about that in this course and I'm much more aware of the sensitivities when conversing with people from different cultures.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Presentations
The presentations in the past two weeks have been enjoyable. Some seemed dry to me only because the nature of the presentations were serious topics, often requiring prerequisite information to fully understand the presentation. Those presentations which stuck with me focused on the most common of topics and the most mundane happenings of everyday life. Basically things that we take for granted.
One of the more memorable ones was presented 2 fridays ago, about wet market transactions by Ghaff's group. They found that there was a noticeable trend that most wet market transactions occurred without any greeting. This comes without any surprise to me, because I guess it really is becoming part of the Singapore culture.
It so happened that I followed my mom down to Ghim Moh market last weekend. It had been a long while since I had been to a wet market, and I needed a break from practicing anyway. I walked round the stalls, rather aimlessly, and found that it really was true, that people more or less communicated very brusquely.
What caught my attention was this. At a fruit stall, all the "Singaporean aunties" were pushing around picking fruits, when the fruit seller raised his voice and said "Hello!" almost all too amiably to a caucasian lady, probably expatriate. The fruit seller started tending to her, introducing all the fruits in the stall, suggesting what was good and what was bad. I thought, maybe she is a regular customer hence the special treatment.
The conversation then turned.
"First time here? First time here maybe give you a bit of discount," said the fruit seller. Well maybe not the exact words because I wasn't taking notes, just merely eavesdropping and trying to recall now. But something along that line, you get the gist.
So... Wet market transactions normally go without greetings. I definitely agree, maybe with an added criteria: If buyer is local.
Perhaps the experience above was an exception. But I tend not to think so. Somehow I think this mentality of "foreign and white, probably better and richer" is not an uncommon perception.
One of the more memorable ones was presented 2 fridays ago, about wet market transactions by Ghaff's group. They found that there was a noticeable trend that most wet market transactions occurred without any greeting. This comes without any surprise to me, because I guess it really is becoming part of the Singapore culture.
It so happened that I followed my mom down to Ghim Moh market last weekend. It had been a long while since I had been to a wet market, and I needed a break from practicing anyway. I walked round the stalls, rather aimlessly, and found that it really was true, that people more or less communicated very brusquely.
What caught my attention was this. At a fruit stall, all the "Singaporean aunties" were pushing around picking fruits, when the fruit seller raised his voice and said "Hello!" almost all too amiably to a caucasian lady, probably expatriate. The fruit seller started tending to her, introducing all the fruits in the stall, suggesting what was good and what was bad. I thought, maybe she is a regular customer hence the special treatment.
The conversation then turned.
"First time here? First time here maybe give you a bit of discount," said the fruit seller. Well maybe not the exact words because I wasn't taking notes, just merely eavesdropping and trying to recall now. But something along that line, you get the gist.
So... Wet market transactions normally go without greetings. I definitely agree, maybe with an added criteria: If buyer is local.
Perhaps the experience above was an exception. But I tend not to think so. Somehow I think this mentality of "foreign and white, probably better and richer" is not an uncommon perception.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Gender Interaction
When we talk about gender interaction and discourse, certain stereotypes jump into mind. Research has proven some of these stereotypes correct. For example, in mixed gender talk, men interrupt women more, and women give much more back channel support than men. Women also use much more mitigated forms than men. These findings seem to portray men as the dominant sex, and women as more submissive.
These results certainly are in line with the traits of most societies today, because today's world is basically dominated by patriarchal societies. What about matriarchal societies though?
In Yunnan province, China, live the Mosuo people who are one of the last living matriarchal societies today. The grandmother or mother is the head of the family. A house may be inhabited by the grandmother, mother, her children, brothers, nieces and nephews but not her husband. In fact, they do not get married there. Women choose who their lovers are, and end the relationship whenever they want. The children born of the relationship are the mother's, and although the children know who their biological father is, they do not share a close relationship with him.
You can read more about this here: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mosuo-One-of-the-Last-Matriarchal-Societies-36321.shtml
In such a society where the female is the central authoratative figure, surely gender talk is different from the "norm"? Perhaps Mosuo practice subconsciously involves women interrupting men, talking more than men, and requires the men to provide more listener responses. IT seems funny to me, but it could be very possible.
After all, it has been argued that gender roles exist because of societal practices and pressure. It may not necessarily be something that we are born intrinsically with. I'm just wondering if any study has been done on discourse in matriarchal societies and what the results were? I think that would be interesting to find out. Perhaps I should change my project topic. Haha.
These results certainly are in line with the traits of most societies today, because today's world is basically dominated by patriarchal societies. What about matriarchal societies though?
In Yunnan province, China, live the Mosuo people who are one of the last living matriarchal societies today. The grandmother or mother is the head of the family. A house may be inhabited by the grandmother, mother, her children, brothers, nieces and nephews but not her husband. In fact, they do not get married there. Women choose who their lovers are, and end the relationship whenever they want. The children born of the relationship are the mother's, and although the children know who their biological father is, they do not share a close relationship with him.
You can read more about this here: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mosuo-One-of-the-Last-Matriarchal-Societies-36321.shtml
In such a society where the female is the central authoratative figure, surely gender talk is different from the "norm"? Perhaps Mosuo practice subconsciously involves women interrupting men, talking more than men, and requires the men to provide more listener responses. IT seems funny to me, but it could be very possible.
After all, it has been argued that gender roles exist because of societal practices and pressure. It may not necessarily be something that we are born intrinsically with. I'm just wondering if any study has been done on discourse in matriarchal societies and what the results were? I think that would be interesting to find out. Perhaps I should change my project topic. Haha.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Computer Mediated Communication
I have always felt that computer mediated communication in text format, that is, sms and email, often seem more insincere than the "normal old fashioned ways" of communicating. If there's someone I miss who's overseas, I'd much prefer to receive a handwritten letter or postcard from that person. I just feel that that is so much more personal than an email or sms. Could this be because of language differences when composing an email and a handwritten letter?
I associate handwritten letters with strict "old fashioned" formatting. You start with the greetings, then the paragraphs, then the sign off. In emails, such formatting may be used but if it's a close contact, it's often in a more casual form, almost resembling a short message, without all the fuss of formatting.
Emails and sms's also often make use of short forms. "You" becomes "u", "because" becomes "cos"... etc. Punctuation is often abused too. Multiple exclamation marks and full stops often find their way into emails and sms's like this: "!!!!!!!!!!!!" or "?!?!?!?!?!?!" or ".... ..... ..... ..... ....".
Indeed, it's much easier to create such repetitions on a keyboard than with a pencil.
As such, it seems as if computer mediated communication is actually much more expressive as compared to handwritten communication. It is ironic that it feels much more distant than the old fashioned way of communicating.
Perhaps it's got nothing to do with language or linguistics. Maybe, letters and postcards mean so much more simply because the sender has touched the very same paper that the person receiving it has. The knowledge of this, and the effort that the sender has put in to write and send the letter, makes the receiver feel something special, and that is where the personal connection really is. Does that make sense? Hm.
I associate handwritten letters with strict "old fashioned" formatting. You start with the greetings, then the paragraphs, then the sign off. In emails, such formatting may be used but if it's a close contact, it's often in a more casual form, almost resembling a short message, without all the fuss of formatting.
Emails and sms's also often make use of short forms. "You" becomes "u", "because" becomes "cos"... etc. Punctuation is often abused too. Multiple exclamation marks and full stops often find their way into emails and sms's like this: "!!!!!!!!!!!!" or "?!?!?!?!?!?!" or ".... ..... ..... ..... ....".
Indeed, it's much easier to create such repetitions on a keyboard than with a pencil.
As such, it seems as if computer mediated communication is actually much more expressive as compared to handwritten communication. It is ironic that it feels much more distant than the old fashioned way of communicating.
Perhaps it's got nothing to do with language or linguistics. Maybe, letters and postcards mean so much more simply because the sender has touched the very same paper that the person receiving it has. The knowledge of this, and the effort that the sender has put in to write and send the letter, makes the receiver feel something special, and that is where the personal connection really is. Does that make sense? Hm.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Politeness
What is politeness really based on? One of the most common ways of studying linguistic politeness is the conversational-maxim approach. The six maxims according to Leech are tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement and sympathy. Using these to gauge levels of politeness makes sense, but it could also be a rather inaccurate way of doing so.
In certain parts of China, requests are made very directly. The first time I went out with a few friends from China, I felt rather uneasy because of their directness of speech. When ordering food in a restaurant, it is normal for the diners to say (I can't type Chinese here so I'll use the English equivalent), "I want to eat this", "Get me some sauce", or "Why is our food taking so long?"
If one analyses that with the tact maxim, it is considered rather impolite. Those requests could be rephrased thus: "I would like some of this", "Could I have some sauce please?" and "It's been quite a while and our food's not here and I'm wondering if anything's the matter?" These rephrased versions seem to 'minimise the cost for the hearer', and is hence considered more polite.
I have learnt from some of my friends from China that the so-called more impolite way is the norm back there. They do not intend to be impolite. They are also not trying to issue commands on purpose. On top of that, in a normal context, if they were spoken to in that manner, they would not have found it impolite. It is simply the way they speak. If this is the case, it all boils down to a cultural difference. It will be unfair for one to judge this culture as being more impolite than others.
One cannot take Leech's maxims as a one-size-fits-all mould to analyze other cultures. I think each culture has their own linguistic rules that govern what politeness is, don't they?
In certain parts of China, requests are made very directly. The first time I went out with a few friends from China, I felt rather uneasy because of their directness of speech. When ordering food in a restaurant, it is normal for the diners to say (I can't type Chinese here so I'll use the English equivalent), "I want to eat this", "Get me some sauce", or "Why is our food taking so long?"
If one analyses that with the tact maxim, it is considered rather impolite. Those requests could be rephrased thus: "I would like some of this", "Could I have some sauce please?" and "It's been quite a while and our food's not here and I'm wondering if anything's the matter?" These rephrased versions seem to 'minimise the cost for the hearer', and is hence considered more polite.
I have learnt from some of my friends from China that the so-called more impolite way is the norm back there. They do not intend to be impolite. They are also not trying to issue commands on purpose. On top of that, in a normal context, if they were spoken to in that manner, they would not have found it impolite. It is simply the way they speak. If this is the case, it all boils down to a cultural difference. It will be unfair for one to judge this culture as being more impolite than others.
One cannot take Leech's maxims as a one-size-fits-all mould to analyze other cultures. I think each culture has their own linguistic rules that govern what politeness is, don't they?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Culture.. baggage or not?
The diverse cultures abound in this world often conflict, even in the smallest of way. In this globalised world which sees both confluence and clashes of cultures ever so often, I am starting to wonder if culture is also a burden.
In class we were asked to give our opinions on 2 situations. One involved a Thai student rushing to the aid of an old woman. In the other, an Australian student simply stood watching the old woman go pass. I noticed how quickly my group, all Asians, were quick in judging the Australian as having a lack of respect for the elderly. His actions could have meant many different things. In his individualistic culture, it probably meant that he was respecting the elderly woman's space and self respect. Imagine if a Thai, whose culture is collectivist, were living amongst Australians. Wouldn't the Thai be seen as notoriously intrusive?
Now if the Thai were to understand Australian culture, should he adopt Australian practice, and momentarily forget about his culture to blend in? In Asian culture, the power distance index between the elderly and the young is generally pretty high. Given the cultural setting in which the Thai were brought up, this would be probably be going against his morals.
Of course, adapting to a new culture and environment is never a black and white issue of forgetting one's original culture to make way for a whole new culture. There are always certain areas of cultural contention where one makes a compromise. Then there are other more instrinsic areas, usually involving moral values, where one's culture becomes so ingrained in one's basic personality that one simply has to stand firm. For example, despite my American professors' insistence that I call them by their last name, I still address them by their title and first name. I can't help feeling disrespectful by using their last names.
Despite the differences that surface when cultures meet, it is still enthralling to meet someone from a different culture. Despite the difficulties that first arise, the process of getting to know the person and the mutual appreciation and respect that eventually grows for the differences is what truly makes the world a celebration of diversity.
In the musical The King and I, the song "Getting to Know You" captures so aptly the situation when 2 cultures meet. Lines like "Getting to know you, saying it my way but nicely" and "getting to know you, getting to know what to say around you" cannot hold more true.
You can watch it at this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aVbJhg23Ao. Do enjoy!
In class we were asked to give our opinions on 2 situations. One involved a Thai student rushing to the aid of an old woman. In the other, an Australian student simply stood watching the old woman go pass. I noticed how quickly my group, all Asians, were quick in judging the Australian as having a lack of respect for the elderly. His actions could have meant many different things. In his individualistic culture, it probably meant that he was respecting the elderly woman's space and self respect. Imagine if a Thai, whose culture is collectivist, were living amongst Australians. Wouldn't the Thai be seen as notoriously intrusive?
Now if the Thai were to understand Australian culture, should he adopt Australian practice, and momentarily forget about his culture to blend in? In Asian culture, the power distance index between the elderly and the young is generally pretty high. Given the cultural setting in which the Thai were brought up, this would be probably be going against his morals.
Of course, adapting to a new culture and environment is never a black and white issue of forgetting one's original culture to make way for a whole new culture. There are always certain areas of cultural contention where one makes a compromise. Then there are other more instrinsic areas, usually involving moral values, where one's culture becomes so ingrained in one's basic personality that one simply has to stand firm. For example, despite my American professors' insistence that I call them by their last name, I still address them by their title and first name. I can't help feeling disrespectful by using their last names.
Despite the differences that surface when cultures meet, it is still enthralling to meet someone from a different culture. Despite the difficulties that first arise, the process of getting to know the person and the mutual appreciation and respect that eventually grows for the differences is what truly makes the world a celebration of diversity.
In the musical The King and I, the song "Getting to Know You" captures so aptly the situation when 2 cultures meet. Lines like "Getting to know you, saying it my way but nicely" and "getting to know you, getting to know what to say around you" cannot hold more true.
You can watch it at this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aVbJhg23Ao. Do enjoy!
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Let's just not say anything, and we won't offend anybody.
In our class discussion of spoken discourse, we talked a lot about spoken responses. These responses were sounded. What about silences though? Silences is a common response. Can it be considered a kind of response when discussing spoken discourse?
I ask this because I'm sure we've all had encounters of awkward silences in conversations. For me, it was a rather disastrous one which was interpreted very wrongly. It was a long time ago, my first lesson with a new teacher, an American:
Teacher (T): I think perhaps this part should be played like this.
Me: -silence- (Totally disagreed because it sounded bad but still nods head)
T: What do you think?
Me: -long silence- uh huh.
This is a scenario that repeated itself for months until my teacher couldn't stand it anymore. He asked why I was always so quiet, and never questioned the way he interpreted music even when I thought it sounded bad. He thought that I was simply being rebellious. It was then that I realized he was intentionally trying to make me respond with all those ridiculous interpretations. But being Chinese and having had Chinese teachers all my life, I was used to following the teacher's instructions, accepting it as correct and never to outwardly go against the teacher in a master-disciple relationship. What I thought was polite behaviour was actually perceived as rebellious!
This particular teacher has a teaching studio of around 20 Asians. At first, he always used wonder why Asians were so unresponsive, like "stone people". He would always wonder aloud why we were so talkative along the hallways but so frustatingly quiet in front of him. He used to interpret this silent behaviour as arrogance, rebelliousness, or that we were terrified of him. In time though, we changed and he eventually came to understand this Asian reticence as a form or respect for the teacher.
I was always told to keep quiet when I'm not sure what to say, this way I will never say anything wrong or offend anybody. This has proved to be a fallacy. Silence is actually already a form of response. and it could be a wrong reflection of our intentions, depending on who we are talking to.
I ask this because I'm sure we've all had encounters of awkward silences in conversations. For me, it was a rather disastrous one which was interpreted very wrongly. It was a long time ago, my first lesson with a new teacher, an American:
Teacher (T): I think perhaps this part should be played like this.
Me: -silence- (Totally disagreed because it sounded bad but still nods head)
T: What do you think?
Me: -long silence- uh huh.
This is a scenario that repeated itself for months until my teacher couldn't stand it anymore. He asked why I was always so quiet, and never questioned the way he interpreted music even when I thought it sounded bad. He thought that I was simply being rebellious. It was then that I realized he was intentionally trying to make me respond with all those ridiculous interpretations. But being Chinese and having had Chinese teachers all my life, I was used to following the teacher's instructions, accepting it as correct and never to outwardly go against the teacher in a master-disciple relationship. What I thought was polite behaviour was actually perceived as rebellious!
This particular teacher has a teaching studio of around 20 Asians. At first, he always used wonder why Asians were so unresponsive, like "stone people". He would always wonder aloud why we were so talkative along the hallways but so frustatingly quiet in front of him. He used to interpret this silent behaviour as arrogance, rebelliousness, or that we were terrified of him. In time though, we changed and he eventually came to understand this Asian reticence as a form or respect for the teacher.
I was always told to keep quiet when I'm not sure what to say, this way I will never say anything wrong or offend anybody. This has proved to be a fallacy. Silence is actually already a form of response. and it could be a wrong reflection of our intentions, depending on who we are talking to.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)